Gollum's sacrifice

[Lotrelf]

Frodo too would then probably, if not attacked, have had to take the same way: cast himself with the Ring into the abyss. If not he would of course have completely failed.

Isn't he saying that Frodo would have had to take the same way, instead Frodo would have taken the same way? And if he wouldn't have done(sacrificing himself), he would have failed completely.

Originally Posted by Zigùr

We can see here that in this case destroying the Ring has aselfishaspect to it: not destroying the Ring to save the people of Middle-earth, but purely to spite Sauron and serve one's own (corrupt) self-interest.

Would you please elaborate? In these circumstances, I do not think Frodo claimed the Ring, it was the Ring that claimed him instead. If Frodo was really going to commit suicide how it becomes selfish?

[Alfirin]

It's a little complicated to explain, but I'll try.



It has to do with Frodo's possible motivation for throwing himself in with the ring, had he done so. in the scenario he puts out (and that Tolkien's letter seems to insinuate) the destruction of the ring becomes less about destroying the ring and more about doing whatever is necessary to keep Sauron for being able to get it. The ring bearer still wants to posses the ring, and cannot bear to give it up, but realizes that he does not have sufficient power to maintain his grip on it should it come down to an actual face off against Sauron; that Sauron will defeat them and take the ring from them, and there is nothing they can do to stop him. So they throw themselves in with the ring so that they can keep Sauron from getting it without having to give it up themselves. Right up until the moment they die, the ring is theirs and theirs alone. It's sort of a "dog in the manger" situation.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Isn't he saying that Frodo would have had to take the same way, instead Frodo would have taken the same way? And if he wouldn't have done(sacrificing himself), he would have failed completely.

Yes, hence why I said in my original post that Frodo would have cast himself into the Fire if he wasn't enticed to leave the Sammath Naur. Professor Tolkien is saying that casting himself into the fire is the only thing Frodo could have done in his Ring-influenced state of mind if he didn't want Sauron to get the Ring back, but it's not necessarily what he would have done. As I said, he might have been deluded enough to go back outside.

Originally Posted by Alfirin

It has to do with Frodo's possible motivation for throwing himself in with the ring, had he done so. in the scenario he puts out (and that Tolkien's letter seems to insinuate) the destruction of the ring becomes less about destroying the ring and more about doing whatever is necessary to keep Sauron for being able to get it.

Exactly. Motives are important. Professor Tolkien is not a consequentialist, which is to say that he does not believe that the ends justify the means. His villains often do have that belief - Sauron and Saruman are perfectly content to use force to bring about their respective visions of an ordered world. The Professor takes it a little further, however. The motive is important too. Thus in this scenario the Ringbearer is destroying the Ring as the only way of "keeping" it and spiting Sauron, who would inevitably take it from them otherwise, and that is an evil motive, because the motive is only to not forsake this evil thing and to harm a rival for its possession. The motive is not to save the people of Middle-earth. So even though the outcome is the same as voluntarily destroying the Ring (which is actually impossible) the motivation here derives from the evil inspired by the Ring itself, which engenders only possessiveness and not pity for the suffering of others.